easiest counter ever

Are you going to murder everyone who has Trump's admiration?

What need of yours does that fulfill?

Would an attack on Goebbels be seen as fighting the tyranny?

Everyone invoking Godwin's law. This is exactly what Charlie was about, having an open discussion with someone, listening to each other, even those you disagree with. Free speech was attacked today and for that we all lost something important. Any comparison to Goebbels is absurd.

Why is the comparison absurd?

Can we at least start with the facts about Goebbels? He was:

- Pro–killing “undesirable” children (look up T4 or Tiergartenstraße 14)

- Virulently anti-Jewish

For starters, Charlie Kirk, for all his flaws, is the opposite on those two points.

I’m not pretending Charlie Kirk was a saint or planning to livestream the funeral but it does puzzle me how people who share far more political DNA with the Nazis keep declaring that others are the "modern Nazis" or Goebbels equivalents.

I think there are many differences and I certainly wouldn't say that the two are perfectly analogous at all, but I think the comparison mainly refers to their similarities as propagandists for their respective leaders which has some validity to it.

I'm curious though: In what way do Democrats (or "the left") share far more political DNA with Nazis?

Murdering people who disagree with you, for one.

First of all, it is important to not generalize an entire side of the spectrum based on the actions of an individual. Secondly, if you are going to do that you should apply the same logic to both sides, and we know that there have been assassinations as well as other forms of political violence from the right as well.

Propagandist for their respective leaders. Was Chester Cheetah the Goebbels of Frito-Lay? Or any other spokesperson for their respective beliefs or organization. Like the other poster stated, one stark difference is that Charlie was strongly in favor of Israel something that diametrically opposes him to Nazi ideology. Secondly, Goebbels and the Nazis were in favor of total control of information. Charlie again was the opposite of that. Anyone could come and challenge him, and actually that did not always go well for Charlie, but he welcomed the open dialogue up until the moment someone murdered him for that.

For me personally, the through line is that chester cheetah, along with most other spokespeople, was not advancing a political organization that demonized and persecuted outgroups, or that tried to subvert and consolidate power.

I believe those things are true of both the MAGA movement and of Nazis, albeit in different amounts of severity.

> Anyone could come and challenge him

This is wrong, it was not a moderated debate. The event was a campaign rally and anyone could be ejected for asking the wrong questions.

> it was not a moderated debate.

How do you figure?

> The event was a campaign rally

For whose campaign, in what contest?

> anyone could be ejected for asking the wrong questions

According to what policy, cited where? What are "the wrong questions", and how did they apparently not include the ones Kirk was addressing when he was shot?

To be frank, modern Israel is getting more similar to their enemies of the past in their genocidal actions and segregation.

And Nazi Germany regime was at some point very into idea of a Jewish state.

> it does puzzle me how people who share far more political DNA with the Nazis keep declaring that others are the "modern Nazis" or Goebbels equivalents

This is a very strong claim to make without support, especially given the history TPUSA had with people who were at best pushing the boundaries of the right. No historical comparison is going match perfectly but it’s hard not to see parallels in the attempts to subvert a democratic political system, demonize minorities, or the justifications they use. TPUSA frequently provided a place for fringe right people to circulate with the larger Republican sphere so while there were worse groups, they certainly weren’t trying to fight that trend.

The guy who said “Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them”? That Charlie Kirk?

> I’m not pretending Charlie Kirk was a saint or planning to livestream the funeral but it does puzzle me how people who share far more political DNA with the Nazis keep declaring that others are the "modern Nazis" or Goebbels equivalents.

Other than Fuentes and his farther-right faction that historically has attacked Kirk for being too wishy-washy and soft in his White nationalism, who do you think this “share far more political DNA with the Nazis” description concretely applies to?

For some reason many Jewish communities seemed to love him a lot.

It suspect you either have taken things out of context (or refer to someone else who did) or you are writing things that didn't happen.

Believing that "communities" of an ethnicity have been "pushing hatred" does not equate to hating that ethnicity.

the comparison is obvious and one that i made myself as soon as I heard this news

>You're talking about the murder of a media personality, not a tyrant or even someone who has any say in how the government is run. You don't fight tyranny by eliminating people just because they have different opinions.

You mean people like Mohammed Khalil or Rumeysa Ozturk?

They weren't shot, but they were arrested, imprisoned without trial and threatened with expulsion for their opinions.

This isn't a "when did you stop beating your wife?" gotcha attempt. Rather, it's an attempt to point up that many of the folks (I'm emphatically not saying that you are one of those folks) who are making the same argument were all in favor of silencing Mr. Khalil, Ms. Ozturk and even argued for stripping Zohran Mamdani of his citizenship because he had the temerity to run a successful primary campaign for mayor of NYC.

If we're (the general 'we') going to make the argument that free expression is important and that we should see differing opinions as a normal part of the process of society, we need to do so for everyone. Even (especially) those whose opinions are objectionable.

And so, as long as we're willing to make the same statements for everyone, I'm in 100% agreement with you.

Those who are only willing to make that argument WRT opinions with which they agree, and again I am emphatically not accusing you personally account42, are not acting in good faith or with intellectual honesty.

Unfortunately, there are far too many folks who fit that description. And more's the pity.

> You're talking about the murder of a media personality, not a tyrant or even someone who has any say in how the government is run.

Why did Donald Trump order flags to be lowered to half-mast for 5 days for this media personality ?

I think that their argument is that this is the only concrete realization possible of the abstract Second Amendment fantasy.

The Second Amendment fantasy is that you should own guns, so that you can kill people in the government and who are adjacent to the government. That means shooting real people with real bullets to kill them.

I think their reply is a criticism of the Second Amendment fantasy, rather than a remark that this is a worthwhile avenue for fighting fascism.

As others have pointed out, Charlie Kirk built a career on the Second Amendment fantasy, even explicitly delineating Democrats as targets he believes are acceptable to shoot and kill.

That said, I do disagree with the assumption that the shooter is necessarily opposed to the Trump administration or even to Charlie Kirk's rhetoric.

"On September 10, 2025, at approximately 12:24PM, Conservative political influencer Charlie Kirk was shot and killed at the Utah Valley University in Orem, UT. Mr. Kirk was speaking at the University as part of the American Comeback Tour. Multiple SLC I and III agents responded immediately. The suspect fired one shot from an elevated position on a rooftop in an adjacent building on the campus and surveillance video shows the suspect, jumping off and fleeing the area on foot. ATF and other law-enforcement located an older model imported Mauser .30-06 caliber bolt action rifle wrapped in a towel in a wooded area near the campus. The location of the firearm appears to match the suspects route of travel. The spent cartridge was still chambered in addition to three unspent rounds at the top fed magazine. All cartridges have engraved wording on them, expressing transgender and anti-fascist ideology. An emergency trace has been submitted an ATF SLC is working leads generated by the trace. The firearm and ammunition have been taken by the FBI for DNA analysis and fingerprint impressions. Upon completion of forensics, the firearm will be disassembled for additional importer information. Multiple people of interest having contacted or detained because of eyewitness testimony and review of video footage. The primary suspect is yet to be identified. ATF is assisting the investigation with multiple other federal, state, and local partners and the case is co-led by the FBI and Utah SBI."

There is irony in an authoritarian majority supporting an oppressed minorities' ability to commit political violence.

While the cost of the second amendment is high, it might prove to be a better political stress release valve than I thought.

If anything, I wonder if the increased political violence will eventually cause conservatives to reconsider their lack of support for Red Flag laws.

> The Second Amendment fantasy

Straw man. Maybe that's your fantasy?